Archives

[This post has been updated.] At least nine of North Carolina’s leading newspapers have now published editorials in support of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent ruling that the November election should go ahead without the voter suppression bans on same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting.

Let’s hope U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues — to whom the defenders of the suppression laws have appealed to stay the Fourth Circuit ruling and keep the limits on voting in place — employ similar logic.

In case you missed it, this Charlotte Observer editorial puts things very succinctly and accurately when it comes to the narrow-minded, wasteful and just plain pigheaded stances of North Carolina’s House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem on the inevitable and impending legalization of same-sex marriage in North Carolina:

Write the check, Mr. Tillis.

If you want to continue North Carolina’s defense of its same-sex marriage ban, even after the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly rejected it and other bans Monday, have at it. If you want to keep fighting a fight that for all practical and legal purposes has been decided, go for it.

But pay for it.

Don’t spend North Carolina’s money doing so. Don’t waste tax dollars on outside attorneys that N.C. lawmakers have said you can use to intervene “on behalf of the General Assembly” in legal challenges of state laws.

That’s apparently what you’re planning, given your reaction Monday to the Supreme Court’s decision to let stand lower court rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans. One of those rulings, on a Virginia law, came from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision applies to North Carolina, too.

The editorial concludes this way:

In other words, Mr. Tillis: It’s over. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but you should follow the lead of your attorney general Roy Cooper, who recognizes the legal futility of fighting. Better yet, look to your governor, Pat McCrory, who told reporters Monday that while he didn’t like the justices’ decision, he believes he must respect it.

Any other course is a waste of time. It’s an irresponsible use of state resources. It’s a cynical play for conservative votes in your U.S. Senate race. It’s one last slap at homosexuals in North Carolina.

It’s not, however, something that N.C. taxpayers should sponsor. If you want to keep up the battle, feel free. But write the check yourself. Or maybe your campaign can pick up the tab.

Greensboro News & Record editorial writer Doug Clark is on the money with this column praising this week’s Fourth Circuit decision to enjoin two key voter suppression laws enacted by North Carolina’s current political leaders:

The court noted the propriety of applying “the totality of circumstances” to its analysis. In this case, the circumstances included waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act last year before the legislature rolled out its bill in all its many parts.

“By inspecting the different parts of House Bill 589 as if they existed in a vacuum, the district court failed to consider the sum of those parts and their cumulative effect on minority access to the ballot box,” Wynn wrote for the court.

Also relevant is the history of racial discrimination in North Carolina’s voting past.

The court drew an obvious conclusion:

“The election laws in North Carolina prior to House Bill 589’s enactment encouraged participation by qualified voters. But the challenged House Bill 589 provisions stripped them away….”

The changes were partisan weapons, no less than gerrymandered redistricting. Why anyone would pretend otherwise is beyond me.

I don’t know how it will come out eventually, but I wish North Carolina would take steps to encourage more voting, not discourage it.

If you need something to bolster your resolve to keep battling for justice this afternoon, check out this story on the U.K.-based news site, The Guardian about one of the driving forces in the court challenge to North Carolina’s “monster voting law.” The story profiles 93-year-old Rosanell Eaton — an African-American woman and NAACP activist with vivid memories from her younger days of previous efforts by conservative, white politicians to deny her the right to vote.

And then there was the day in 1939 when Rosanell turned 18 and gained the right to vote. She was a vibrant young woman, eager to learn and engage with the world, and determined to have her electoral say at the first chance. But when she arrived at Franklin County courthouse, she was met by three white officials.

“What are you here for, young lady?” one of them asked.

“I’m here to register to vote,” she said.

The men looked at each other, then back at her. “Stand in front of us,” she was instructed. “Look directly at us. Don’t turn your head to the right, nor to the left. Now repeat the preamble to the constitution of the United States.” Read More

Civil rights groups and several African-American churches sued state officials in May over a new state law eliminating “Golden Week,” a week-long window when people could both register to vote and cast a ballot in Ohio, and a statewide early, in-person voting schedule that did not include Sundays. Attorneys led by the American Civil Liberties Union successfully argued in U.S. Southern District Court that the reduced number of days burdened low-income and African-American Ohioans who are more likely to take advantage of Golden Week and Sunday voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Economus agreed. He ruled that once Ohio granted a broad scheme of early, in-person voting, state officials could not reduce it in a way that burdened certain groups of voters.